The hon. Gentleman prefaced his motion with declaring, that he was actuated by no perfonal motives in bringing it forward, and that it was a duty which any Member of the Houfe might feel incumbent on him, with refpect to the return that was made to that patriotic defcription of men, who fo zealously came forward in fupport of the country, at a moment when its wants and diftreffes had accumulated to the highest pitch. The hon. Gentleman here took a furvey of the state of Europe at the period when this loan was contracted for, and fhewed that both with regard to our external relations, and the internal concerns of the empire, our situation was most precarious and perilous. Such, however, was the moment when the most patriotic ardour was difplayed by those who came forward with fuch alacrity in fupport of the diftreffes of Government, which, from a variety of caufes, were very confiderably aggravated at that moment. In proot of the diftreffes of Government, and of the eagerness of the loyalty loan fubfcribers to relieve them, the hon. Gentleman read a number of extracts from the correfpondence which at that critical period had taken place between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Directors of the Bank. After animadverting on the manner in which the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General had been fet up in direct oppofition to the claims of the fubfcribers, contrary to the spirit and the letter of the contract between Government and the parties, and the refolution of the prefent Chancellor of the Exchequer to abide by that opinion, in poftponing for a whole year the redress to which the fubfcribers upon fo many accounts were entitled, the hon. Gentleman concluded with moving, that the loyalty loan act fhould be referred to a Committee.

Mr. Vanfittart felt fome difficulty in replying to the hon. Member, because he did not know whether he refted his motion on the law and the principles of good faith, or on the liberality of Parliament. If he came forward on the queftion of law, that had been decided already by the opinion of his learned Friends (the Crown lawyers), an opinion not haftily taken up, but deliberately given, and the courts of law were open for the relief of any perfon who thought himfelf aggrieved. The difference between the opinions of his learned friends, and that of another learned counfel, arofe, in his conception, from a miítatement to the latter of "the date of the ratification of the definitive treaty. As to the question of liberality, though he respected fuch a mo

412

tive,

tive, he thought the Houfe would be flow to countenance the liberality of Chancellors of the Exchequer to perfons with whom they might have made bargains. The hon. Gentleman then entered into a detailed account of the variation between the original contract and the refolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, and between the refolution and the provifions of the bill, in order to prove that the difference had not arifen from any mistake, but from the difcretion of Parliament exercifing the right faved to it in the original contract of approving it in the terms stipulated or otherwife, the whole being only a provifional bargain fubject to the approbation of the Houfe.

Mr Burroughs thought that the only queftion which in this cafe was to be decided, was the true construction of the decifion of the Houfe of Commons at the time mentioned. The loan was originally contracted for at the propofal of the Bank, and the terms of it were to be found in a printed paper in 1796. On the 8th of December in that year, a refolution of the Houfe paffed, approving of the propofal, except in two inftances; the one refpecting annuities for life, and the other with refpect to notice to be given pre-. vious to repayment. We fhould in this cafe look to the refolutions of the Committee, rather than the act itfelf, otherwife what was to become of the good faith which ought to fubfift between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who contract with him? He begged to know whether the three months notice in these refolutions were to be deemed concurrent, or fuperadded to the two years ? He could not approve of the alteration which had been made by Parliament for fubftituting fix months inftead of three. Due notice ought at leaft to have been given to the fubfcribers, that fuch an alteration was intended to be introduced into the act, which was to pass upon the original articles of agreement. There were in the act two moft important departures from the refolutions of the Committee; the one was fubftituting fix months in place of three months notice to be given by the holders; and the other was, that thefe fix months were to be fuperadded to the two years after the ratification of peace. Such at leaft was the confruction put upon the act by the Attorney General. did not argue the point upon the footing of liberality in the House, but upon its good faith; and, therefore, it was the duty of the Houfe to rectify any error or inconfiftency witch may have crept into their proceedings.

He

Mr. Pitt had had a great fhare in the origin of this tranf

action,

action, and he thought it right to fay that he meant to confider it merely as a queftion of good faith and juftice. The ftatute upon which the difference of opinion exifted, departed from the refolution of the Committee which preceded it, and which in his judgment was binding upon that Houfe with refpect to the contract with the fubfcribers to the loyalty loan. Some doubts exifted, he understood, on the construction of the ftatute as to the time when the holders of the loyalty loan had a right to claim payment. For himself be had no hefitation to fay, that his opinion coincided with that of Mr. Pigot, both as founded upon the juflice of the cafe, and warranted by the letter of the act. It was ftated, that the opinion of that learned barrifter was erroneous, because it was founded upon an erroneous statement as to the date of the conclufion of the treaty of peace; but his opinion, it should be remembered, did not hinge upon any thing of that kind, but related to this question, whether the notice, which by the ftatute was to precede the payment of thofe fubfcribers, was to be concurrent with, or fuperadded to, the two years fubfequent to the treaty of peace, which were to elapfe before any claim fhould be made. From the words of the act, and from all the circumftances connected with the tranfaction, he was decidedly inclined to the opinion of Mr. Pigot, and to deviate from that opinion would not, in his judgment, be to accord with the principles of good faith, which he hoped Minifters would fufficiently feel it their duty to attend to. If there was any doubt in their mind as to the best mode of proceeding in confequence of the alteration in the act from the words of the refolution, he thought it was their duty to apply for the advice of that Houfe, and if there was any mistake, to have it rectified, but by no means to truft to any opinion againft the equity of the cafe. The bargain was known to be concluded when the refolution of the Committee was publithed, and any departure from that refolution in the pro grefs of the bill, was an alteration made by one of the parties, without the confent of the other. As fuch departure had occurred through inadvertency, he truffed that Minif ters would not run the risk of expofing Parliament to the charge of impofition by refufing to correct the evil complained of, a charge which was never attempted to be caft before. He begged leave to imprefs on the minds of the Houfe that almoft immediately after the refolution of the Committee was agreed to, by which the propofal of thofe fubfcribers was acceded to, fome of them made a depofit,

and

and many of them paid their firft inftalments before the bill was paffed in which that refolution was altered.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been inclined to admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's reafoning, and that of the hon. Member who preceded him, if there had not been circumftances in the cafe to which neither of them had feemed to advert. The difcretion of the Houfe was not tied up by any refolutions of a Committee. The money which was paid upon the faith of these refolutions was not available till after the bill had received the concurrence of the Lords and the royal affent. It was nothing elfe than a depofit at the Bank, which remained till the bill had gone through all its ftages. The notice which had been fuck up at the Bank, contained the refervations to which the parties fubfcribed, fubfequent to which the refolutions of the Committee were agreed to. Good faith

did not require that fuch bargains fhould always be made in conformity to fuch refolutions, becaufe, in every stage of the bill, fome alteration might take place. An application had been made by the holders of the loyalty ftock for an additional bonus, in confequence of the lofs they faid they had fuftained from a depreciation of the funds, and for an interval of four or five months, the contract having been made when 3 per cents. were at 56, but had fallen to 46 or 47, The grounds on which this application had been made were, that a fecond loan had been contracted for the fervice of the year. At that time the language of the Gentlemen who have fpoken, was very different from their fentiments now. The attention of Parliament, and the attention of the fubfcribers, was particularly called to the tranfaction of that loyalty loan, and to the act by which it was to be raifed, by the great debates which took place in Parliament at that time. There was not then one word of complaint, by either party, against the alterations which took place; the parties had, therefore, a fair and full opportunity of knowing the determination of the Legislature. To say that parties were thus to take advantage of their own ignorance, and come forward with complaints at this period, was applying a new principle which might prove a dangerous precedent. It was his duty to attend to the opinion of the officers of the Crown, while the parties may fill have redrefs in a court of juftice. The fubfcribers, however, had not a fure ground to ftand upon. If the liberality of the Houfe was to be appealed to, we muft confider who are to be the objects of liberality, and who the objects of juftice.

The

The public intereft had a claim to our confideration, and it must be a fatisfaction to the Houfe to be informed that the original fubfcribers will be paid at par, and receive fomething more than 7 per cent. and no lofs would be fuftained by the public. On thefe grounds he could not confent to the motion, or the objects of the hon. Gentleman. If, however, it fhould be the pleafure of the Houfe not to acquiefce in the motion, he thought an arrangement might be made with the parties; that the time of payment of the bonus might be delayed till the time of peace, when payment would take place with lefs inconvenience to the public than at prefent.

Mr. Fox confidered this queftion of infinite importance, and concurred with the whole of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Pitt). He stated that it never was the custom to propose any alteration in a bill founded upon a refolution in a Committee of Ways and Means refpecting any loan. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman on the Treafury bench, to quote one inftance where any fuch propofition was made by him, or any other Gentleman who ever fat on the bench which he (Mr. Fox) had occupied for fo many years. This obfervation he made in order to mark the refpect for good faith towards public creditors, which had been uniformly felt in that House, and to fhew that no one had ever before meditated any thing like an alteration in the terms of a loan particularly injurious to the contractors. It had often, to be fure, been attempted to throw out a loan bill altogether, as it might be in the Loids, but never in any cafe to alter the terms; that is, if the intereft to the lender was proposed to be 5 per cent. no one ever moved in any ftage of a loan bill, that fuch intereft fhould be reduced, and for this obvious reafon, that it would be a fcandalous breach of faith to new-model a contract without the confent, and in a manner not subject to the control of one of the contracting parties. The contracting parties in this tranfaction he confidered to be the Houfe of Commons and the fubfcribers to the loyalty loan, and he trufted that that Houfe would never by an act of power violate a folemn act of covenant, to which it fubfcribed when it agreed to the report of the Committee, the refolution of which formed the bargain now under difcuffion. The hon. Member afferted, that the contractors had a right to confider the refolution of that Committee as conclufive of their bargain, and could not be fuppofed to have any cognizance of the fubfequent proceeding

upon